You always comment about how the government doesn't care about the people, how everything is a hoax, Obama is out to kill us etc.. Seriously, it's so annoying everywhere, that's all you post about. 

 

I like how you attack me without having anything to back it up...why don't you show me proof that hes really a good guy and he cares about the people while I cant provide you with countless articles suggesting otherwise, he has done nothing but lie since he got in and im sure the ndaa bill is not for the American people no its for the "terrorists"...back on topic global warming is a hoax its all about a carbon tax last I checked al gore is not a scientist

 

I like how you attack me without having anything to back it up...why don't you show me proof that hes really a good guy and he cares about the people while I cant provide you with countless articles suggesting otherwise, he has done nothing but lie since he got in and im sure the ndaa bill is not for the American people no its for the "terrorists"...back on topic global warming is a hoax its all about a carbon tax last I checked al gore is not a scientist

 

I never said I like him. I'm saying you honestly come on here all the time talking about how everything is a hoax and Obama is out to kills and what not. It gets annoying on all these topics where you post. 

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please keep on topic. Thanks.

Something that always has bothered me whenever climate change is 'debated' is that the denying side always tends to claim two things:

1. 'Global Warming' is a bad name for Global Climate Change (therefor the theory is bunk) and

2. We don't have enough data.

I think both sides can agree on the first part of number 1, since it's a bad name that is much too overused. Yes, the earth is getting hotter, but as an average, not as a day-to-day thing. As a result, it'll be colder some places and warmer others on any given day, but if you look at what the average temperature is every year, it is always going up. Seriously, check it out. By calling it Global Warming, it makes people in Minnesota think it is bullshit every time it snows. XKCD has a decent comic explaining the negative impact of calling climate change global warming.
 

Number two on the other hand? Bullshit, plain and simple. There are no legitimate scientific bodies that believe the current heating of the planet is primarily caused by anything other than human beings. None. The last one changed its opinion in 2007, and it was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Seriously. It's one of the most wildly agreed upon things in the scientific world, up there with vaccines being safe and physics being real. I know we, or at least I, really don't want us to be causing climate change, because if we aren't, it means we don't need to change anything. We can keep pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and never get worried. But the sad fact is we are most definitely doing it, and no one who knows what they are talking about disagrees. Of course, obviously some people do. Who? Primarily the fossil fuels lobby and the Koch brothers, or people who have a lot of interest in keeping people using coal, natural gas and oil, instead of renewables. Just like when scientific consensus was reached that smoking and chewing tobacco was detrimental to the health of a human being, a bunch of deniers appeared on behalf of the Tobacco industry shedding 'doubt' on the studies. Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change. If climate change was so obviously bunk, or so plainly easy to see as unresearched and not our problem, then why would businesses and politicians be spending millions of dollars to suppress information and raise doubt about scientific consensus? 

We are causing climate change. It isn't going to end life on earth, but it could very well end our life. Humans are an immensely species. We've built machines that have taken us off of our own planet, and right now you are reading something that was shot at a satellite with a beam of light less than 3 seconds before you could read it. Unfortunately, we have become powerful enough to, in small steps and over hundreds of years, impact the balance of a very delicate system of things. No one reading this is likely to be severely impacted by climate change. But our children will be. And theirs. We have to work today to mitigate the future consequences of our actions, and anyone telling you otherwise is either misinformed about the facts or willingly ignoring them for personal gain. 

Something that always has bothered me whenever climate change is 'debated' is that the denying side always tends to claim two things:

1. 'Global Warming' is a bad name for Global Climate Change (therefor the theory is bunk) and

2. We don't have enough data.

I think both sides can agree on the first part of number 1, since it's a bad name that is much too overused. Yes, the earth is getting hotter, but as an average, not as a day-to-day thing. As a result, it'll be colder some places and warmer others on any given day, but if you look at what the average temperature is every year, it is always going up. Seriously, check it out. By calling it Global Warming, it makes people in Minnesota think it is bullshit every time it snows. XKCD has a decent comic explaining the negative impact of calling climate change global warming.

 

Number two on the other hand? Bullshit, plain and simple. There are no legitimate scientific bodies that believe the current heating of the planet is primarily caused by anything other than human beings. None. The last one changed its opinion in 2007, and it was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Seriously. It's one of the most wildly agreed upon things in the scientific world, up there with vaccines being safe and physics being real. I know we, or at least I, really don't want us to be causing climate change, because if we aren't, it means we don't need to change anything. We can keep pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and never get worried. But the sad fact is we are most definitely doing it, and no one who knows what they are talking about disagrees. Of course, obviously some people do. Who? Primarily the fossil fuels lobby and the Koch brothers, or people who have a lot of interest in keeping people using coal, natural gas and oil, instead of renewables. Just like when scientific consensus was reached that smoking and chewing tobacco was detrimental to the health of a human being, a bunch of deniers appeared on behalf of the Tobacco industry shedding 'doubt' on the studies. Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change. If climate change was so obviously bunk, or so plainly easy to see as unresearched and not our problem, then why would businesses and politicians be spending millions of dollars to suppress information and raise doubt about scientific consensus? 

We are causing climate change. It isn't going to end life on earth, but it could very well end our life. Humans are an immensely species. We've built machines that have taken us off of our own planet, and right now you are reading something that was shot at a satellite with a beam of light less than 3 seconds before you could read it. Unfortunately, we have become powerful enough to, in small steps and over hundreds of years, impact the balance of a very delicate system of things. No one reading this is likely to be severely impacted by climate change. But our children will be. And theirs. We have to work today to mitigate the future consequences of our actions, and anyone telling you otherwise is either misinformed about the facts or willingly ignoring them for personal gain. 

So if humans are the only ones capable of causing climate change, how has the earth had hundreds of different climates over the past 4.5 billion years?

 

And also, how come the ice caps on Mars are melting too? Too much CO2 emissions on it?

 

I also like how you attempted to blame it all on a political party. Since the 1960's, the left has donated billions into funding global warming "research." One even plans to donate $100 million this year alone. I don't know of the Koch Brothers investing that much into anything in a single year. As a scientist, why would you end your job by saying the thing you're researching doesn't exist?

So if humans are the only ones capable of causing climate change, how has the earth had hundreds of different climates over the past 4.5 billion years?

Anthropomorphic climate change is NOT believed to be the only climate change earth has ever had. What it is is a very rapid one, powered by the increase in greenhouse gases, that could make earth a different place than what it was when humans came into existence. In addition, natural climate change (barring dramatic acts such as supervolcanoes and meteors) generally takes hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years to come to fruition. Anthropomorphic climate change is caused by the very rapid increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere, which heats the planet under the very simple process known as the greenhouse effect. Now, unless there is another species that has built a global civilization on earth that is dependent on the burning of hydrocarbons to provide the basics of survival for all 7 billion+ members of their species, it's fair to say that humans are causing this increase in CO2. 

 

 

And also, how come the ice caps on Mars are melting too? Too much CO2 emissions on it?

Why are they melting? They aren't. The oft cited study that mars is experiencing global warming is talking about a very short time period, from the 1970s to the 1990s. Mars has, on average, been slightly warmer in those 20 years than in years past. This evidence is mainly based one a few images of the planet right after a dust storm contrasted with it during one. However, this isn't doing much to the polar ice caps there, and more importantly, the planet is NOT being warmed from an excess of CO2, nor is there evidence to suggest long term warming. Since the 1850s, it has always been warmer on earth than it was in previous years. The climate variability on mars comes from their atmosphere being vastly thinner than earth and the fact that massive dust storms, which block out the sun and can cool the planet (or in this case, if they don't happen enough, can have a net warming impact) are the driving change in Mars' climate. It is a myth to suggest that Mars is suffering from any provable long term global warming.

 

 

 

I also like how you attempted to blame it all on a political party. Since the 1960's, the left has donated billions into funding global warming "research." One even plans to donate $100 million this year alone. I don't know of the Koch Brothers investing that much into anything in a single year. As a scientist, why would you end your job by saying the thing you're researching doesn't exist?

(Bold by me) If a scientist could legitimately prove that anthropomorphic climate change is not occurring, or even just prove that the thousands of papers published showing that it is caused by human activity are fundamentally flawed and incorrect, then that scientist would be remembered as one of the single most important contributors to modern science. If the paper had verifiable and irrefutable evidence that climate change is not being caused by humans, thus proving one of the most widely accepted facts of the 20th and 21st centuries, then it would spawn many a lifetime of followup studies and research grants. It would be the most important paper published in at least the last 25 years. Yet, somehow, that hasn't happened. Every time a climatologist sets out to figure out why the earth is getting warmer, the evidence points to the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere since the late 1700s. History tells us that a widespread species starting doing a lot of things that puts CO2 into the air around the same time. We have yet for a legitimate scientist to propose a plausible and evidence backed alternative theory (scientific theory, not colloquial. So one backed with evidence and peer-reviewed verifiable data) that gives us a different mechanism for the heating.

I blame the widespread political disbelief in a scientific fact not on Republicans, but on certain conservatives, mass hysteria, crap reporting by the media and fossil fuel lobbies. The Republican party might cater to some of these groups more than the Democrats (which party always tries to roadblock environmental legislation?), but both sides have said ignorant and blatantly false or misleading things about climate change. After all, the Kyoto protocol was shut down by both parties in the Senate in 1998. It just so happens that conservatives tend to be doing more to prevent responses to climate change than anyone else, however, and I felt the need to bring this into the discussion, since there is no scientific debate to be had here. Unless there is a paper that can fundamentally prove every university system, climatologist and government in the United States, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Australia and Italy wrong, we have nothing to discuss but why we aren't doing something and what we need to do today. 

 

The only reason we are debating the existence of global warming is because the media treats this as an open issue; something that is still being tested. But by the people who are educated as to how climate science works? This is a done deal. It's a fact. You can believe that 5 is a bigger number than 15, but that doesn't make you right. Jon Oliver did a lovely sketch explaining what this 'debate' would look like if we gave each side the debating power that it has in the scientific world. 

I really, really wish global warming was a hoax. That we could keep burning fossil fuels and not worry about any long term damage to the planet or our ecosystem. But just like I wish I had a million dollars, or that I wish there was no suffering in the world, or that I wish my crappy car was a new Dodge charger, no matter how much I want something to be true, even if I believe it is, it doesn't make it true. Denying anthropomorphic climate change is denying one of the most universally accepted and proven facts of the 21st century. You'd have more luck holding an alternative theory to Newtonian physics, cell theory or string theory than to suggest climate change is anything other than a Human caused problem. 

Anthropomorphic climate change is NOT believed to be the only climate change earth has ever had. What it is is a very rapid one, powered by the increase in greenhouse gases, that could make earth a different place than what it was when humans came into existence. In addition, natural climate change (barring dramatic acts such as supervolcanoes and meteors) generally takes hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years to come to fruition. Anthropomorphic climate change is caused by the very rapid increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere, which heats the planet under the very simple process known as the greenhouse effect. Now, unless there is another species that has built a global civilization on earth that is dependent on the burning of hydrocarbons to provide the basics of survival for all 7 billion+ members of their species, it's fair to say that humans are causing this increase in CO2. 

 

The biggest downfall of the global warming theory is that it falls on the data from 164 years of temperatures, and suggests that it is not normal when compared to 99999996355% of the Earth, which we simply don't have good information on the rise in temperature on a year to year basis. We can make guesses based on the flora and fauna of that time period, and how high sea levels were. We can even find specific temperatures in ice cores. But nothing specific on a year by year basis.

 

 

 

Why are they melting? They aren't. The oft cited study that mars is experiencing global warming is talking about a very short time period, from the 1970s to the 1990s. Mars has, on average, been slightly warmer in those 20 years than in years past. This evidence is mainly based one a few images of the planet right after a dust storm contrasted with it during one. However, this isn't doing much to the polar ice caps there, and more importantly, the planet is NOT being warmed from an excess of CO2, nor is there evidence to suggest long term warming. Since the 1850s, it has always been warmer on earth than it was in previous years. The climate variability on mars comes from their atmosphere being vastly thinner than earth and the fact that massive dust storms, which block out the sun and can cool the planet (or in this case, if they don't happen enough, can have a net warming impact) are the driving change in Mars' climate. It is a myth to suggest that Mars is suffering from any provable long term global warming.

 

And the Earth's had a consistent temperature for 20 years. Apparently, it is not being warmed by an excess of C02 either.

 

 

I blame the widespread political disbelief in a scientific fact not on Republicans, but on certain conservatives, mass hysteria, crap reporting by the media and fossil fuel lobbies. The Republican party might cater to some of these groups more than the Democrats (which party always tries to roadblock environmental legislation?), but both sides have said ignorant and blatantly false or misleading things about climate change. After all, the Kyoto protocol was shut down by both parties in the Senate in 1998. It just so happens that conservatives tend to be doing more to prevent responses to climate change than anyone else, however, and I felt the need to bring this into the discussion, since there is no scientific debate to be had here. Unless there is a paper that can fundamentally prove every university system, climatologist and government in the United States, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Australia and Italy wrong, we have nothing to discuss but why we aren't doing something and what we need to do today. 

 

The only reason we are debating the existence of global warming is because the media treats this as an open issue; something that is still being tested. But by the people who are educated as to how climate science works? This is a done deal. It's a fact. You can believe that 5 is a bigger number than 15, but that doesn't make you right. Jon Oliver did a lovely sketch explaining what this 'debate' would look like if we gave each side the debating power that it has in the scientific world. 

 

I really, really wish global warming was a hoax. That we could keep burning fossil fuels and not worry about any long term damage to the planet or our ecosystem. But just like I wish I had a million dollars, or that I wish there was no suffering in the world, or that I wish my crappy car was a new Dodge charger, no matter how much I want something to be true, even if I believe it is, it doesn't make it true. Denying anthropomorphic climate change is denying one of the most universally accepted and proven facts of the 21st century. You'd have more luck holding an alternative theory to Newtonian physics, cell theory or string theory than to suggest climate change is anything other than a Human caused problem.

 

The issue with your entire logic in that is that you can't prove a negative. You can prove a claim, but not a negative, because there is nothing to prove with a negative. Additionally, as soon as it is proven that man made global warming is a scam, the money dries up. No more "SAVE THE PLANET!" block grants, no more galas with the president, no more litany of doom threats to make more money.

 

The reason why people remain so skeptical isn't because the media is enforcing a 50/50 opinion, it's because we can't even accurately predict the weather for next week. It's because of hundreds of failed claims of doom by the global warming "scientists." No more snow. The Ice Caps are melting out of control. All coastal areas will be flooded by the year 2000. The last one is probably the most damning, considering that the largest governmental body on Earth, who could get whatever qualified scientists it needs short of resurrecting them, makes a statement that is 14 years and counting late.

 

You want me or others to believe in global warming? Show me accurate predictions of doom. Until then, the only purpose of continuing the global warming, I'm sorry, "climate change" as it is now called, is for more money for the scientists, a quick way into the scientific spotlight for making yet another paper on how the Earth is flat, and an excuse for more taxes.

Scientific enquiry has demonstrated the Earth's temperature has and probably will continue to rise, whether or not humans are impacting upon this is a trivial matter, the important issue is that it's happened.  I regard fossil fuels and the replacement thereof to be of more importance at this moment in time, reserves of said will run out in the not-so-distance future and we'll be out on our arses if we don't have a suitable replacement -- if switching from fossil fuel to a "greener" energy source inadvertently slows or stops "global warming" then excellent.  If not, more research is needed to ascertain the full set of circumstances surrounding the temperature rise and ways to combat it.

Edited May 17, 201411 yr by Braveheart

Man Made Climate Change-The idea that out of 4,540,000,000 years, on a planet that has gone from a sea of lava to worldwide tropics to multiple ice ages, research over 30 years, or .00000000660792952% of the time, has indicated that the activities of humans in about 200 years since industrialization, or .0000000440528634% of the time of Earth's life, have caused the temperature to increase by one degree.

 

Oh, and the sky is falling because of that.

Between 1960 and 2000, Europe's permafrost raised in temperature by one degree. Considering the permafrost is only -2 degrees currently, it will melt within 80 years if we do not protect it. This will cause the flooding of alot of Europe and will damage a very fragile eco-system.

 

It's not just about the ice caps in the antarctic. Global warming affects areas much closer to home for some of us.

Between 1960 and 2000, Europe's permafrost raised in temperature by one degree. Considering the permafrost is only -2 degrees currently, it will melt within 80 years if we do not protect it. This will cause the flooding of alot of Europe and will damage a very fragile eco-system.

 

It's not just about the ice caps in the antarctic. Global warming affects areas much closer to home for some of us.

But since 2000, the temperature has been relatively stable with an average increase of 0. For all we know, the previous data could have been one of the many slow heating trends like the Earth has had since the last ice age, or we could be currently experiencing a temporary hiatus.

But since 2000, the temperature has been relatively stable with an average increase of 0. For all we know, the previous data could have been one of the many slow heating trends like the Earth has had since the last ice age, or we could be currently experiencing a temporary hiatus.

No, it hasnt. The temperature change has slowed, but not yet stopped, and that's only because of the measures in place by the IPCC, and yet the area temperature is still increasing at twice the global rate.

But since 2000, the temperature has been relatively stable with an average increase of 0. For all we know, the previous data could have been one of the many slow heating trends like the Earth has had since the last ice age, or we could be currently experiencing a temporary hiatus.

 

14 years is hardly a reasonable comparison to 40.

14 years is hardly a reasonable comparison to 40.

When compared to the 40, yes it is. And 40 is hardly a reasonable comparison to 4.5 billion years.

The climate changes all the time, it's NOT static and not predictable nor is it heavily influenced by anything man does.  Just goes to show how vain humans are to actually think we can influence the worlds weather (OK...HARP maybe...but not cow farts and cars).

 

As for the poor polar bears....The ice cap has not melted one iota, it has grown, as it's 70-degrees below zero there.  You have to have ice at 32-degrees Fahrenheit for ice to melt, basic science.  Do you really think it's ever reached 32-degrees there?  Really??  Actually, it's far far colder than that at 70-below zero.  Come one folks, it's basic math!  Not to mention there is roughly 100-trillion-trillion tons of ice (that is 30-zeros behind the numerator folks).

 

For instance; in order for the ice to increase 1-degree (at the 70-below number), would take approximate 450-trillion joules of energy, or 220,000 of our larges nukes to raise the temp 1-degree.  This exercise has been done mathematically, based on volume of ice and average temps. Not gonna happen if you do the math.

 

Another example; remember last winter when many top "climate" scientist went to Antarctica to view and conduct tests on the loss of ice and how it's melting away to nothing.  They were on a large ship, an ice cutter, and that ship got stuck in massive ice flows (whoops...the ice was suppose to be melted...what's this!!).  Then two Chinese ice breakers show up to save the scientist, and they got stuck...then two more ice breakers got stuck.  but..but..but...the ice!  It's supposed to be melted!!

 

Or how about the climate reports and charts that have been flat out faked?  This has been proven as fact, that the top two/three scientists in the field (forgot their names) has forged and faked their reports and findings.  They have the emails and correspondence to prove it...look it up.  It's public knowledge at this point

 

Al Gore(d)...pff...he invented the internet; what more needs to be said about his truthfulness.  He made billions off this global warming hoax.

 

Bottom line, the climate change is a hoax, and if you believe it, you also probably believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and Roger Rabbit.  

 

Look at it this way; if your studying climate change as a scientist, you probably are getting gov't grants for the research funds.  We'll if you say there is no significant climate change, then guess what, you don't need anymore grants for your research becuase there is no need for further research, so the money runs out and you have to go get a real job.  That's all this is, scientists to keep the money flowing to the tune of billions of dollars per year.  

 

How much proof do people need to see in order to know that it's a hoax so the funds keep on flowing into their projects (and bank accounts) Follow the money folks...that is where the path of lies, deceit and false claims leads to.

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit

The climate changes all the time, it's NOT static and not predictable nor is it heavily influenced by anything man does.  Just goes to show how vain humans are to actually think we can influence the worlds weather (OK...HARP maybe...but not cow farts and cars).

 

As for the poor polar bears....The ice cap has not melted one iota, it has grown, as it's 70-degrees below zero there.  You have to have ice at 32-degrees Fahrenheit for ice to melt, basic science.  Do you really think it's ever reached 32-degrees there?  Really??  Actually, it's far far colder than that at 70-below zero.  Come one folks, it's basic math!  Not to mention there is roughly 100-trillion-trillion tons of ice (that is 30-zeros behind the numerator folks)......... [snipped]

 

As I said earlier on in the thread, global warming doesn't just occur in the antarctic or extremely cold areas. It happens in both Europe and Canada, where the permafrosts in the area are very ecologically vulnerable to temperature change. Between 1960 and 2000, Europe's permafrost raised in temperature by one degree. Considering the permafrost is only -2 degrees currently, it will melt within 80 years if we do not protect it. This will cause the flooding of alot of Europe and will damage a very fragile eco-system. In the past 100 years, it is estimated that we have lost 15 species of plants, and if this continues, could have a significant impact on the nearby areas.

 

Want to know what the cause of this is? Humans! It's the exhaust fumes from our vehicles that caused the permafrost temperature to increase. The local government banned vehicles from getting within a certain radius of that area and guess what? The temperature change began to slow! So yes, we humans have a massive impact on the earths weather.

Edited May 18, 201411 yr by Tom H

When compared to the 40, yes it is. And 40 is hardly a reasonable comparison to 4.5 billion years.

 

Correct.  But you're missing one key element: human involvement on an industrial scale.  Since the industrial revolution usage of fossil fuels has increased exponentially.  I would wager that the last 40 years has seen the largest increase over fairly a short period of time.

Correct.  But you're missing one key element: human involvement on an industrial scale.  Since the industrial revolution usage of fossil fuels has increased exponentially.  I would wager that the last 40 years has seen the largest increase over fairly a short period of time.

Compared to when? There is no accurate data on year by year temperature increases before the last ice age. There is simply nothing to compare it to, and, since we left an ice age less than 5,000 years ago, it would be reasonable to beleive that the Earth will continue to naturally warm.

 

 

As I said earlier on in the thread, global warming doesn't just occur in the antarctic or extremely cold areas. It happens in both Europe and Canada, where the permafrosts in the area are very ecologically vulnerable to temperature change. Between 1960 and 2000, Europe's permafrost raised in temperature by one degree. Considering the permafrost is only -2 degrees currently, it will melt within 80 years if we do not protect it. This will cause the flooding of alot of Europe and will damage a very fragile eco-system. In the past 100 years, it is estimated that we have lost 15 species of plants, and if this continues, could have a significant impact on the nearby areas.

 

Want to know what the cause of this is? Humans! It's the exhaust fumes from our vehicles that caused the permafrost temperature to increase. The local government banned vehicles from getting within a certain radius of that area and guess what? The temperature change began to slow! So yes, we humans have a massive impact on the earths weather.

 

 

 

Look, I don't necessarily disagree with you.  I don't know about that which you reference, so I can't respond to that issue specifically.  I can tell you that the scientist do look at the Antarctic for signs of global warming because, supposedly, those areas would be affected and detected first, measurably and without the variables, before anywhere else.  Everywhere else there are far too many factors and variables to conclude a solely human element cause such changes.

 

When I was in grade school, in the late 70s, all the talk among the scientific community was we were in the "Little Ice Age"....now it's global warming...oh, let's just call it climate change.  During my youth, this last winter would have been on par for what we expected from Nov-Feb.  

 

In the 1500s, it was concluded to be a little ice age (could be 15th century...can't remember...detail without a difference), so the climate is not as predictable as one might think.

 

I'm always skeptical when a gov't agency (or sponsored agency) says there is global warming and the only way to combat it is if we pay $20 per gallon of gas, no coal or shale production, pay higher electric bills, more money for food, and we can't burn wood!  That is nothing but tyranny for the sake of the climate, which means they get our money, our lifes production and freedoms because of some edict that the climate is changing. 

 

DrDetroit

Look, I don't necessarily disagree with you.  I don't know about that which you reference, so I can't respond to that issue specifically.  I can tell you that the scientist do look at the Antarctic for signs of global warming because, supposedly, those areas would be affected and detected first, measurably and without the variables, before anywhere else.  Everywhere else there are far too many factors and variables to conclude a solely human element cause such changes.

 

When I was in grade school, in the late 70s, all the talk among the scientific community was we were in the "Little Ice Age"....now it's global warming...oh, let's just call it climate change.  During my youth, this last winter would have been on par for what we expected from Nov-Feb.  

 

In the 1500s, it was concluded to be a little ice age (could be 15th century...can't remember...detail without a difference), so the climate is not as predictable as one might think.

 

I'm always skeptical when a gov't agency (or sponsored agency) says there is global warming and the only way to combat it is if we pay $20 per gallon of gas, no coal or shale production, pay higher electric bills, more money for food, and we can't burn wood!  That is nothing but tyranny for the sake of the climate, which means they get our money, our lifes production and freedoms because of some edict that the climate is changing. 

 

DrDetroit

That's fair enough, you're entitled to your own opinion.

 

I don't think that Global warming is a complete scam, but I do believe that it is exaggerated quite a lot for the reasons you've stated above.

 

No, the antarctic would not show signs of Global warming first, since it is more ecologically secure than areas such as Europe's Permafrost which are more vulnerable to minute changes whereas the antarctic, as you have previously said, would require more energy in order to raise the temperature.

 

Do you realize how much human activity actually takes place in the Antarctic? Geez, there was a point where it was used by some countries for nuclear warhead testing.

Compared to when? There is no accurate data on year by year temperature increases before the last ice age. There is simply nothing to compare it to, and, since we left an ice age less than 5,000 years ago, it would be reasonable to beleive that the Earth will continue to naturally warm.

 

The only reason you don't believe in climate change is because you (like most people) don't have the full picture. If many of you were to do proper research which consists of scientifically backed information from accredited scientists and studies instead of sensationalist media and politicians who have no idea what they are talking about, then you would see that the facts supporting the theory are overwhelming.

 

I would also like to point out some errors in your assertions in the last comment;

 

Firstly, have you ever heard of ice core samples? They involve drilling into extremely thick ice on the icecaps and glaciers to get samples, which tell us little things like the local temperature for that are for the last 800,000 years give or take (depending on the nature and location of the sample). Therefore we do infact have accurate temperature data from the last FEW iceages, not just since the latest.

 

Secondly the last ice age ended around 12-13,000 years ago, not 5000.

 

Your information gathering needs some work. There are similar flaws in most of your comments.